Marc My Words: Why I Hate LMSs

First I hated instructional objectives, and then I hated ADDIE. Now I hate learning management systems.

Full disclosure, I had a teeny, tiny part in hastening their creation. Twentyyears ago, I worked for VBG (Very Big Company). Our immense course registrationcall center cost a small fortune to run. So, in the mid-1990s, I put together ateam to build one of the first LMSs from scratch. Rudimentary as it was, it cutour call center usage by 70 percent. Initially, it focused on classroom-trainingmanagement, but as we got into eLearning, the problems started.

A little background

The nascent eLearning companies at the time would sell us courses and“throw in” their so-called LMS. Problem was, their LMS only worked with theircourses. We had to run different courses from different companies on differentplatforms. It was the razor and razor blades scenario.

We wanted interoperability, consistency, and enterprise reportingacross all eLearning products. Early vendors wanted exclusivity, locked-incontracts, and control. We got angry, as the legendary and fictional Howard Bealewould say, “We were mad as hell and we weren’t going to take it anymore.”

Along with other large companies, we pushed hard for an integrated,single-platform approach that would run alleLearning programs. Fortunately, the advent of eLearning standards, first, mostnotably AICCand then SCORM, as well as thescrappiness of interoperable upstarts, changed the LMS industry.

Modern-day LMSs were born out of the new transactional capabilities ofthe Internet in the late 1990s and early 2000s. They are as much eCommerce aseLearning. Like the then new online retail giants such as eBay and Amazon, LMSscould offer many products, process thousands of transactions, handle paymentsand delivery, and keep track of it all. This is a great value of LMSs then, andnow. Without a good LMS, there would be an awful lot of chaos in the trainingand eLearning world.

So, why do I hate LMSs?

Actually, I don’t hate LMSs; they do what they were designed to doquite well. But I am not so sure we fully understand their limitations, or whatwe are getting ourselves into with them. Here are nine key concerns:

1. They can stifle creativity. There aremany great examples of innovation in the eLearning world, but too often,despite the best of intentions, the limitations of the LMS and the underlyingSCORM construct, can be inhibiting. When a new idea comes up against a systemand software that can’t handle it, more often than not it’s the idea that getstossed rather than the system that gets upgraded.
2. They can force a path to the least commondenominator. Whether it’s the testing tool on the LMS or the authoring toolon a companion LCMS, designers are usually stuck with the options andcapabilities provided. To deviate runs the risk that you will not be able totrack or easily update the resulting courseware elements.
3. They generate a multitude of reports thatcan yield important insights, but the organization needs to know what to dowith those insights. Making the best use of LMS data in a timely mannerrequires analysts who know what they are doing, what to look for, and how tomake sense of it all, as well as leaders who know how to use the information toimprove the system.
4. They can be very expensive. Loaded withbells and whistles, some LMSs are so costly that getting one consumes theentire L&D development budget (and a pile of IT money as well); nothingelse gets done. And sometimes, companies end up with more than they need, orless than they need, and a year or two later, they’re back at it, starting over.More cost.
5. No LMS can meet all organizational needsexactly. Some compromise is likely. But there is always a temptation tocustomize the LMS or build workarounds to make the system perform precisely asenvisioned. As the LMS drifts from the standard solution offered by the vendor,keeping up with new versions becomes difficult and pricey.
6. They can be a pain to implement. Buyingthe LMS is just the beginning. Now you have to implement it. This can takemonths or years and lots of consulting help (another cost). More built-in configurabilityis a good thing. Still, setting it up can be quite an endeavor.
7. They can be too focused on just managing trainingassets and systems. Classroom, virtual classroom, and eLearningdeliverables … no problem. But as the field gets more into information,collaboration, social, and performance support-based solutions—more of a learning and performance ecosystem—most current LMSsare limited in what they can do.
8. They can be used for the wrong purposes. Wantto put out a memo to everyone in the company and track if they’ve read (I mean“opened”) it? Just give it a course number and put it into the LMS. Want to useLMS attendance reports as the main measure of compliance? No problem, butremember, attendance does not equal competence. Trying to force-fit LMSs intotasks they were not really designed to do is fraught with unintendedconsequences.
9. They canbe seen as a substitute for instructional design. Technology will just aseasily distribute and track bad training as it will good training. There are,undoubtedly, tons of lousy courses being built and delivered very efficiency byLMSs (and LCMSs). This is not a technology problem; it is a design problem.

Many of you will say that these concernsare a result of our inappropriate use of a well-designed LMS, and there’s a lotof truth to that. But like the tail wagging the dog, despite our bestintentions, we often succumb to the limits of the technology—any technology—and the enticements ofeasy, if ill-advised solutions.

Bright spots

Don’t get me wrong; I’d prefer theseconcerns be addressed rather than for LMSs to go away. Here are four signs thatthat’s happening:

1. Configurability and upgradability is on therise. As more LMSs become more flexible, the need to get a new one everyfew years will hopefully diminish because you’ll be able to more easilyintegrate new product capabilities into existing systems. Furthermore, a moreconfigurable LMS will have a longer life expectancy than one that has to becustomized every time a new feature is needed.
2. More cloud-based solutions and more flexiblepricing options. With cloud-basedsolutions, implementation becomes easier. Users take only the features theywant and turn the others off, and the LMS company takes on more of theoperational responsibilities. This results in pricing plans that more closely matchwhat each customer actually needs and can afford.
3. Instructional designers are getting betterat designing effective learning programs in spite of any LMS or SCORMlimitations. Increasingly, designers do not have to rely just on thefeatures and tools that come with the LMS. For example, for those who want amore robust testing environment, there are now better tools they can use thatare compatible with many LMSs and SCORM.
4. LMSs arestarting to get into the informal side of learning. The impetus for this comesfrom two main sources. First, LMS customers are getting smarter about what LMSscan and can’t do, and are more articulate in what they want from next-generationproducts. Customer-driven enhancements can be far more impactful thanvendor-driven enhancements. Second, and even more important, is the rise of xAPI,which gives LMSs that adopt it the capability to engage workers in the contextof job performance and track other forms of learning that are not courses. This can be a game-changer.Another specification that is soon to be released is cmi5. Working on top ofxAPI, the new cmi5 standard is designed to support course packaging,installation, tracking, and LMS interoperability into the future.